Rameshkumar v. Annakodi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL RC Nos. 871 and 878 of 2026 and CRL MP Nos. 6763 and 6727 of 2026 Crl.RC.No.871 of 2026 Rameshkumar ..Petitioner Vs

1. Annakodi

2. Minor Jessia Routh ..Respondents Crl.RC.No.878 of 2026 Ramesh @ Rameshkumar ..Petitioner Vs Minor Jessia Routh ..Respondent Prayer in Crl.RC.No.871 of 2026: Criminal Revision case filed under section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS to set aside the order made in C.M.P.No. 820 of 2023 in M.C.No.5 of 2021 dated 09.01.2026 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthukuli.

Prayer in Crl.RC.No.878 of 2026: Criminal Revision case filed under section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS to set aside the order made in C.M.P.No. 447 of 2023 in M.C.No.1 of 2023 dated 09.01.2026 passed by the learned District Munsif cum

Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthukuli.

For Petitioner:

Mr.C.Ramkumar (in both cases) COMMON ORDER These Criminal Revision cases have been filed to to set aside the order made in C.M.P.No. 820 and 447 of 2023 in M.C.No.5 of 2021 and M.C.No.1 of 2023 dated 09.01.2026 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthukuli.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 1st respondent in Crl.RC.No.871 of 2026 is not at all his wife. However, She filed the application with false claim.

3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended such submissions, while perusing counter statement, the issue between petitioner and respondent is lingering for quite some time and also there was an FIR in the year 2021 and now that what the Magistrate decides is only the interim maintenance. Therefore, as rightly observed by the learned Magistrate, it is too premature to go into the definite finding in respect of disputed facts. Hence, based upon the available material, the learned Magistrate has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.2,000/- to the

daughter.

4. It is the settled principle of law that while exercising the power of revision, the circumspect is very limited unless the order is palpably error and manifestly injustice and perverse, the question of interference does not arise. From the perusal of the order, this Court could not find any perversity, though the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the 1st respondent is not at all his wife and 2nd respondent in Crl.RC.No.871 of 2026 is not at all his daughter. while considering the interim maintenance application, it is too premature to go into the definite finding. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the present application.

5. Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 17-04-2026 SHL To:

1. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthukuli.

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

SHL CRL RC Nos. 871 and 878 of 2026 and CRL MP Nos. 6763 and 6727 of 2026 17-04-2026